Over and over again, anti-gay groups have trotted out clergy and chaplains as beleaguered minorities whose rights are being trampled. And over and over again, this line of reasoning intentionally misconstrues the relationship among religion, law and marriage.
Bernie Sanders deserves the Most Impressive Democrat award this week, because he threw his hat in the ring. No, he is not Elizabeth Warren. But, more importantly, he is running to become president, which she is not.
As expected, civil rights legend Mary Bonauto knocked it out of the park for marriage equality. But something bigger was in the air -- a sense that history wasn't just turning but had, in some basic sense, turned.
Conservatives believe that if blacks and Latinos simply work hard, get a good education and earn a good income, historical racial wealth gaps will disappear. The problem is that this sentiment ignores the ways that race continues to affect Americans today.
In recent hearings on efforts by state governments to ban same-sex marriages, Supreme Court justices peppered representatives of both sides with quest...
When I use the word "unthinkable" in connection with the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, I typically have in mind the long line of unthinkably bad decisions the court has issued since Roberts assumed office in 2005.
In the past, marriage was primarily about property and procreation whereas today the emphasis is on egalitarian partnership, companionship and love. In the past, the state and most religions did not recognize divorce, remarriage, interracial marriage or the equality of the marriage partners.
I have always loved the Supreme Court. As a law student, I made pilgrimages to the Court to listen to arguments. It fortified me and inspired me for the hard work and sacrifice ahead.
In this episode of Nicholas Snow Live, I bring you the complete audio recording of the oral argument in 14-556, Obergefell v. Hodges, and consolidated cases.
At the end of the day, the overwhelming emotion we were left with was hope. Hope for a future where all kids can grow up with the simple right to love whomever they love and have that love recognized.
Marriage in the Bible was much more about property rights, ensuring paternity of offspring, succession, political alliances and tribal stability than it was about companionship, mutual support and affection as we think of marriage today.
If no reliable evidence at all were required to justify legislative classifications in constitutional cases, the judiciary would be transformed from a co-ordinate branch into a meaningless rubber stamp. The Framers neither intended nor envisioned that role for an institution they designated to serve as the "[bulwark] of a limited Constitution."
It's likely that Justices Thomas and Alito agreed with the basic sentiments Scalia seemed to be expressing -- a sense of pride, even, that passionate religious opposition to same-sex marriage rang out loudly, at the same time that conservatives across the country continue to craft "religious freedom" laws to blunt LGBT equality in the states.
There are consequences to waiting. Couples are denied their rights, which has ramifications from child custody to driver licenses to death certificates. Look at what the status quo means: Gay couples separated in hospitals. Losing their life savings when one passes away. Having a marriage license revoked when they cross state lines.
At the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, it will once again be a matter of life or death. Specifically, the Justices will be considering a morbid potpourri of death penalty issues arising out of the controversy over the drugs that states use to put people to death.
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing arguments about whether or not I have the right to marry a person of my choosing irrespective of whether or not they are "male" or "female."